This is exactly how jokes work. Put them the other way around and you're left with a bland true statement. The point is to emphasize how bad "how to read this manual" manuals are, not actually to categorize manuals.

Depends on the manual. In my experience "How to read" either indicates the manual is borderline incomprehensible, or more often, the manual only describes trivial concepts that won't help you at all, for example, that clicking save will save the file.

So in addition to not helping you understand, it will waste your time. Which can make it worse then having none.

But any "needs manual, doesn't have manual" tool is less likely to be seriously relied upon in the first place, so it won't cause too many problems.

Think correlation, not causation.

Programs that can get away at all with not having a manual aren't going to be the most complicated ones.

Kinda like how algorithms with O(N³) complexity have a reputation for being the most likely to screw you in production. It's not because O(N³) is worse than O(exp N), it's because O(exp N) will be noticed in testing whereas O(N³) is likely to have okay performance in testing and blow up with real-life inputs.